Company Law in Different Countries

In general, laws reflect the values of the jurisdiction that has enacted them. The specific case of how company directors are treated under UK, Australian and United States law provides insights into the cultural values of those jurisdictions and demonstrates what function the company performs in those societies, what status company directors enjoy, and the degree of accountability to which company directors are held when a decision or gross malfeasance results in huge losses for the company and its shareholders.

A salient example of how a company director's behaviour can be ruinous comes from the case of AWA Ltd v Daniels, decided by the Australian Supreme Court in 1992 (1992 7 ASCR 759). AWA was a well-established Australian company involved in the manufacture, import and export of electronic components. Because the company occasionally lost money due to

. . .
traditional model which asked that a director do only as much as one might expect of someone like the director (Tomasic, 392). In other words, in the absence of blatant dishonesty or bad faith, directors were excused from liability. Today in Australia, directors are expected to be well informed of company matters, even to the point of attending company meetings regularly unless they have a valid excuse. Directors are therefore presumed under Australian law to know what their subordinates are doing and to be in charge of daily operations. In this way, Australian law has made directors personally responsible. As one Australian court noted, an individual entrepreneur who squandered investors' funds could be called to account for breaching his duty of care; the court added "we are not impressed by this perceived barrier" against holding directors liable at common law (Daniels v Anderson, 1995). According to one Australian jurist, Australian law in this area differs from English law in the following ways. First, company directors are expected to maintain a greater awareness of the company's affairs. Second, directors cannot presume that their subordinates' integrity is beyond reproach. Third, Australian courts look for a degree of
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Trans Union, Arthur Andersen, Companies Code, House Lords, Moreover American, Accordingly AWA, UK United, Australia United, Australian United, Supreme Court, judgement rule, business judgement rule, english law, company directors, business judgement, australian law, trans union, judgment rule, company law, business judgment, director liability, business judgment rule, law differs english, australian law differs, differing cultural values,
Approximate Word count = 2205
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Company Law in Different Countries